text:
Little Shop of Horrors (film)
Little Shop of Horrors | |
Theatrical release poster
Directed by | Frank Oz |
Produced by | David Geffen |
Screenplay by | Howard Ashman |
Based on | Little Shop of Horrors by Alan Menken Howard Ashman The Little Shop of Horrors by Roger Corman |
Starring | Rick Moranis Ellen Greene Vincent Gardenia Steve Martin Levi Stubbs |
Narrated by | Stanley Jones |
Music by | Miles Goodman |
Cinematography | Robert Paynter |
Edited by | John Jympson |
company |
Distributed by | Warner Bros. |
Release dates
Running time
94 minutes (Theatrical Cut)[1] 103 minutes (Director's Cut) |
Country | United States |
Language | English |
Budget | $25 million |
Box office | $38,748,395 |
Little Shop of Horrors is a 1986 American rock musical horror comedy film directed by Frank Oz. It is a film adaptation of the off-Broadway musical comedy of the same name by composer Alan Menken and writer Howard Ashman about a nerdy florist shop worker who raises a vicious, raunchy plant that feeds on human blood. Menken and Ashman's Off-Broadway musical was based on the low-budget 1960 film The Little Shop of Horrors, directed by Roger Corman. The 1986 film stars Rick Moranis, Ellen Greene, Vincent Gardenia, Steve Martin, and Levi Stubbs as the voice of Audrey II. The film also featured special appearances by James Belushi, John Candy, Christopher Guest, and Bill Murray. It was produced by David Geffen through The Geffen Company and released by Warner Bros. on December 19, 1986.
Little Shop of Horrors was filmed on the Albert R. Broccoli 007 Stage at the Pinewood Studios in England, where a "downtown" set, complete with overhead train track, was constructed. The film was produced on a budget of $25 million, in contrast to the original 1960 film, which, according to Corman, only cost $30,000.[2] The film's original 23-minute finale, based on the musical's ending, was rewritten and reshot after receiving a strong negative reception from test audiences. Before it was fully restored in 2012 by Warner Home Video, the original ending was never available publicly other than in the form of black-and-white workprint footage.
In September 1962, Seymour Krelborn (Rick Moranis) and his colleague, Audrey (Ellen Greene), work at Mushnik's Flower Shop, lamenting they cannot escape the slums of New York City. Struggling from a lack of customers, Mr. Mushnik (Vincent Gardenia) prompts to close the store, only for Audrey to suggest displaying an unusual plant Seymour owns. Immediately attracting a customer, Seymour explains he bought the plant, which he dubbed "Audrey II", from a Chinese flower shop during a solar eclipse. Attracting business to Mushnik's shop, the plant soon starts dying, worrying Seymour. Accidentally pricking his finger, he then discovers Audrey II needs human blood to thrive.
Audrey II continues to grow rapidly and Seymour becomes a local celebrity. Seymour soon attempts to ask Audrey out, but she turns him down because she has a date with her violent, sadistic dentist boyfriend Orin Scrivello (Steve Martin). Despite this, Audrey is interested in Seymour, as well as dreams of marrying him and escaping Skid Row. After Seymour closes up shop, Audrey II (Levi Stubbs) begins to talk to Seymour, demanding more blood than Seymour can give. The plant proposes Seymour murder someone in exchange for fame and fortune: Seymour initially refuses, but agrees upon witnessing Orin slapping Audrey.
Seymour books an appointment with Orin and arms himself with a revolver: however, he cannot bring himself to use it. Orin, who abuses nitrous oxide, puts on a type of venturi mask to receive a constant flow of the gas. Accidentally breaking an intake valve and unable to remove the mask, Orin begs Seymour for help removing it as Seymour just stands there. When Orin asks Seymour what he ever did to him, Seymour replies, "Nothing, it's what you did to her." Orin dies from asphyxiation and Seymour drags his body back to Audrey II. While dismembering the body for the plant, Seymour is unknowingly spotted by Mushnik, who flees in fear.
After feeding Orin's parts to Audrey II, Seymour discovers the police investigating Orin's disappearance. Audrey, feeling guilty about wishing Orin would disappear, is comforted by Seymour and the two admit their feelings for each other. That night, Mushnik confronts Seymour, believing he murdered Orin. Threatening to turn Seymour in, Mushnik offers to let him escape in exchange for the secret to the plant's care routine. Out of options, Seymour causes Mushnik to back into Audrey II's open mouth, who then devours Mushnik.
Despite widespread success, Seymour worries about Audrey II's growth and insatiable appetite. Offered money and a contract for a botany TV show, Seymour plans to escape Skid Row with Audrey using the money, leaving the plant to starve. After Audrey accepts Seymour's marriage proposal, Audrey II catches Seymour leaving and demands another meal: Seymour agrees, but insists on meat from a butcher. While Seymour is gone, the plant calls Audrey, coaxes her into the shop and then tries to eat her. Seymour, returning in time to save Audrey, escapes the store with her. Explaining that he fed the plant to become successful and win Audrey's heart, Seymour discovers she has always liked him. Approached by an executive from a botanical company named Patrick Martin (James Belushi), Seymour is offered a contract to breed Audrey II and sell the saplings worldwide. Seymour then realizes he must destroy Audrey II and the plant's plans for planetary domination.
Confronting Audrey II, Seymour learns the plant is in reality an alien from outer space. Trapping Seymour, Audrey II collapses the store, attempting to kill him. Seymour, trapped under debris, grabs an exposed electrical cable and electrocutes Audrey II, causing it to explode. Leaving the destroyed shop, Seymour safely reunites with Audrey. The two wed and move to the suburbs: arriving at their new home, a smiling Audrey II bud can be seen among the flowers in their front yard.
Original ending[edit]
During production, director Oz shot a 23-minute ending based on the off-Broadway musical's ending. However, after receiving negative reviews from test audiences, the ending had to be rewritten and re-shot for the theatrical release with a "happier ending".
In the original ending, after Audrey is attacked by Audrey II, Seymour rescues Audrey, who is seriously injured. Confessing to Audrey he fed Mushnik and Orin to Audrey II, Audrey requests Seymour feed her to the plant and earn the success he deserves before she dies in his arms. Seymour does so, but soon attempts to commit suicide only to be stopped by Patrick Martin (Paul Dooley). Patrick offers to reproduce and sell Audrey II as he had grown a smaller Audrey II from one of the clippings that he harvested as the smaller Audrey II smiles at him. He also warns Seymour that his consent isn't necessary as plants are considered public domain. Realizing Audrey II's plans for global domination, Seymour climbs down the roof with the resolution to destroy the plant. Returning to the shop, Seymour confronts and tries to kill Audrey II, who tears down the shop, plucks Seymour out of the rubble and eats him alive. Audrey II then spits out Seymour's glasses and laughs.
The three chorus girls appear in front of a large American flag and tell how although Audrey II buds became a worldwide consumer craze, the buds grew into an army of monstrous plants who begin to take over the Earth.[3] Giant Audrey II plants are shown destroying cities, toppling buildings, as well as eating people. The final shot shows the U.S. Army as it attempts to fight the buds as they ascend the Statue of Liberty. An Audrey II then breaks the fourth wall to eat the audience as the camera zooms into its mouth.
- Rick Moranis as Seymour Krelborn, a nerdy florist who loves "strange and interesting" plants. He means well but becomes easy-influenced when the plant, Audrey II, tricks him into feeding it humans.
- Ellen Greene as Audrey, a sweet, quiet, ditsy and insecure coworker who is the object of Seymour's affections, but dating the sadistic Orin Scrivello.
- Vincent Gardenia as Mr. Mushnik, the grouchy, penny-pinching owner of Mushnik's Flower Shop.
- Steve Martin as Orin Scrivello, DDS, an abusive, sadistic and nitrous oxide-huffing dentist, as well as Audrey's boyfriend.
- Levi Stubbs as the voice of Audrey II, an evil and profane flytrap-like extraterrestrial plant with plans to take over the planet.
- Tichina Arnold, Michelle Weeks, and Tisha Campbell as Crystal, Ronette, and Chiffon, the three dropout schoolgirls who act as a Greek chorus throughout the film.
- James Belushi as Patrick Martin, a Licensing and Marketing executive from World Botanical Enterprises who offers Seymour a proposal to sell Audrey IIs worldwide. Belushi appears in the theatrical release after re-shoots, as actor Paul Dooley (who played Martin in the original ending) was unavailable to reprise his scenes.
- John Candy as Wink Wilkinson, the WSKID DJ (the only one) who enjoys putting on a radio show about "weird stuff" called, "Wink Wilkinson's Weird World"
- Christopher Guest as The First Customer, the first customer to enter the flower shop and notice Audrey II.
- Bill Murray as Arthur Denton, an enthusiastic masochist man who goes to Orin for "a long, slow root canal."
- Miriam Margolyes as a Dental Nurse, Orin's sarcastic nurse/secretary who Orin appears to enjoy harming frequently.
- Stanley Jones as the Narrator, whose voice is heard reading the opening words.
- Mak Wilson, Danny John-Jules, Danny Cunningham, Gary Palmer, and Paul Swaby as the doo-wop backup singers.
Jim Henson's daughter Heather Henson cameos as one of Orin's patients.
Audrey II was operated by John Alexander, Anthony Asbury, Don Austen, David Barclay, Michael Barclay, James Barton, Michael Bayliss, Marcus Clarke, Sue Dacre, Graham Fletcher, Brian Henson, Terry Lee, Christopher Leith, Toby Philpott, Mike Quinn, Paul Springer, William Todd-Jones, Ian Tregonnian, Robert Tygner, and Mak Wilson.
Musical numbers[edit]
- "Prologue: Little Shop of Horrors"– Chiffon, Ronette, Crystal
- "Skid Row (Downtown)"– Seymour, Audrey, Mushnik, Chiffon, Ronette, Crystal, Company
- "Da-Doo"– Seymour, Chiffon, Ronette, Crystal
- "Grow for Me"– Seymour, Chiffon, Ronette, Crystal (off-screen)
- "Somewhere That's Green"– Audrey
- "Some Fun Now"– Chiffon, Ronette, Crystal
- "Dentist!"– Orin, Chiffon, Ronette, Crystal
- "Feed Me (Git It)"– Audrey II, Seymour
- "Suddenly, Seymour"– Seymour, Audrey, Chiffon, Ronette, Crystal
- "Suppertime"– Audrey II, Chiffon, Ronette, Crystal
- "The Meek Shall Inherit"– Chiffon, Ronette, Crystal, Company
- "Suppertime (Reprise)"– Audrey II, Audrey, Chiffon, Ronette and Crystal (off screen)
- "Suddenly, Seymour (Reprise)"– Audrey, Seymour
- "Mean Green Mother from Outer Space"– Audrey II, the Pods
- "Little Shop of Horrors medley" (end credits)– Company
- Original ending
- "Somewhere That's Green (Reprise)"– Audrey, Seymour
- "Mean Green Mother from Outer Space"– Audrey II, the Pods
- "Finale (Don't Feed the Plants)"– Chiffon, Ronette, Crystal, Company
"Bad" The song "Bad" was written for the film, but was cut at some point in production. It was released as a bonus track on the 2003 Broadway Revival Cast Album. From the dialogue included on the recording, the track seems to have been an early version of the climax, performed solely by Audrey II, and shares many similarities to the song "Mean Green Mother from Outer Space". [4]
David Geffen was one of the original producers of the off-Broadway show and he began planning to produce a feature film adaptation. He originally wanted Steven Spielberg to executive produce the film and Martin Scorsese to direct. Scorsese wanted to shoot the film in 3-D, but plans fell through and Scorsese's first 3-D film would be Hugo 25 years later.[citation needed] John Landis was also approached to direct.
Geffen then offered the film to Frank Oz, who was finishing work on The Muppets Take Manhattan around the same time. Oz initially rejected it, but he later had an idea that got him into the cinematic aspect of the project, which he did not figure out before. Oz spent a month and a half to restructure the script which he felt was stage-bound. Geffen and Ashman liked what he had written and decided to go with what he did. Oz was also studying the Off-Broadway show and how it was thematically constructed, all in order to reconstruct it for a feature film.[5]
The film differs only slightly from the stage play. The title song is expanded to include an additional verse to allow for more opening credits.[citation needed] The song "Ya Never Know" was re-written into a calypso-style song called "Some Fun Now", although some of the lyrics were retained.[citation needed] Four other songs ("Closed for Renovation", "Mushnik and Son", "Now (It's Just the Gas)", as well as "Call Back in the Morning") were cut from the original production score. An original song written by Ashman and Menken, "Mean Green Mother from Outer Space", was created for the film.
Greene was not the first choice for the role of Audrey. Geffen wanted a star role for the film. The studio wanted Cyndi Lauper, who turned it down. Barbra Streisand was also rumored to have been offered the part. Since Greene was the original off-Broadway Audrey, the role was given to her. "She's amazing", Oz said. "I couldn't imagine any other Audrey, really. She nailed that part for years off-Broadway."[5] The character of the masochistic dental patient, Arthur Denton, played in the original film by Jack Nicholson and cut from the stage version, was added back to the story and played by Bill Murray, who improvised all of his dialogue. It supposedly took Steve Martin six weeks to film all his scenes as Orin. He contributed ideas such as socking the nurse in the face (originally he was to knock her out using his gas mask) and ripping off the doll head.
All the scenes were filmed at Pinewood Studios in England, making use of every sound stage there, including the 007 Stage. Oz and his crew did not want to shoot on location as it would tamper with the fantastical mood of the film. Part of the giant 007 stage was used to film the 'Suddenly Seymour' number. But because of its size, the stage was impractical to heat properly and thus caused breath condensation to appear from the actor's lips. This was countered by having Ellen Greene and Rick Moranis put ice cubes in their mouths. This would be the first time Moranis and Martin starred in a film together and as they would later appear together in three more films: Parenthood, My Blue Heaven and L.A. Story.
As mentioned, additional sequences and songs from the original off-Broadway show were dropped or re-written in order for the feature version to be paced well. The notable change was for the "Meek Shall Inherit" sequence. As originally filmed, it detailed through a dream sequence Seymour's rising success and the need to keep the plant fed and impress Audrey. In the final cut, the dream sequence and much of the song is cut out. Oz said, "I cut that because I felt it just didn't work and that was before the first preview in San Jose. It was the right choice, it didn't really add value to the entire cut."[5] The full version of the song was included on the film's soundtrack album, as were the songs from the original ending. The sequence was deemed to be lost until in 2012, it was rediscovered on a VHS workprint that contained alternate and extended takes and sequences.[6]
Operating the plant[edit]
The film's version of Audrey II was an extremely elaborate creation, using puppets designed by Lyle Conway.
While developing the mouth of the plant for the dialogue scenes and musical numbers, Oz, Conway and his crew were struggling to figure out how to make the plant move convincingly. "We kept trying and trying and it didn't work."[7] The solution presented itself while reviewing test footage of the puppet. When the film was run backwards or forward at a faster than normal speed, the footage looked much more convincing and lifelike. They realized they could film the puppet at a slower speed, making it appear to move faster when played back at normal speed. "By slowing it down it looked it was talking real fast. We then went 'holy cow, look at that. We can do it.'"[7] The frame rate for filming the plant was slowed to 12 or 16 frames per second, depending on the scene, and frequent screen cuts were used to minimize the amount of screen time the puppet spent with human actors, and when interaction was totally necessary, the actors (usually Moranis) would pantomime and lip sync in slow motion.[7] The film was then sped up to the normal 24 frames per second and voices were reinserted in post-production. Levi Stubbs' recordings were run through a harmonizer when slowed down so that they were coherent for Moranis or Ellen Greene.
There are no blue screens or opticals involved in any of Audrey II's scenes, with the exception of one effect in the reshot ending where the plant is electrocuted, and in some shots during the rampage in the original ending. The plant was made in six different stages of growth and there were three different versions of Mushnik's shop, making it possible for two units to work with different sized plants at the same time. Each of the talking plants had to be cleaned, re-painted and patched up at the end of each shooting day, which would take up to three hours depending on the size. The "Suppertime" number uses two different sizes of Audrey II. When the plant is singing all alone in the shop, it is actually a smaller size: the same size as when it sang "Feed Me", but now standing on a scaled down set to make it look larger. The full size one that is seen to interact with Seymour and Mushnik was not provided with lip movement, but was built to swallow Mushnik's (mechanical) legs. During Audrey II's final stage of growth, 60 technicians were necessary to operate the one-ton puppet.[8]
The finale[edit]
Oz and Ashman wanted to retain the ending of the musical where Seymour and Audrey die and the plant succeeds and takes over the city of New York, but Geffen was actually against it. "He said you can't do that," Oz recounts. "But again he knew what Howard and I wanted to do, so he supported us."[5] A special effects team skilled in working with miniatures went to great lengths to create the finale. The model department was supervised by Richard Conway, known for his effects work on Flash Gordon and Brazil. "It was all model stuff, that was the brilliant thing. He created the bridge, the buildings, several Audrey IIs and created all of it, all on tabletop. It's all old-fashioned, tabletop animation"[5] [although no stop motion animation was used in the film or in the ending].
Reportedly the entire, planned climax cost about $5 million to produce.[citation needed] Oz said in an interview, "this was, I think, the most expensive film Warner Bros. had done at the time."[5] As the film was nearing completion, the excited studio set up a test screening in San Jose. Oz said, "For every musical number, there was applause, they loved it, it was just fantastic... until Rick and Ellen died, and then the theatre became a refrigerator, an ice box. It was awful and the cards were just awful. You have to have a 55 percent "recommend" to really be released and we got a 13. It was a complete disaster." Oz insisted on setting another test screening in L.A. to see if they would get a different reaction. Geffen agreed to this, but they received the same negative reaction as before.[5] Oz later recounted, "I learned a lesson: in a stage play, you kill the leads and they come out for a bow — in a movie, they don't come out for a bow, they're dead. They're gone and so the audience lost the people they loved, as opposed to the theater audience where they knew the two people who played Audrey and Seymour were still alive. They loved those people, and they hated us for it."[9]
Oz and Ashman scrapped Audrey and Seymour's grim deaths and the finale rampage, and Ashman rewrote a happier ending, with James Belushi replacing Paul Dooley (who was unavailable for the re-shoot) as Patrick Martin. The musical number "Mean Green Mother from Outer Space" was left mostly intact from the original cut, with new shots of Audrey observing from a window added in. A brief sequence from the "Mean Green Mother" number was also removed in which Seymour fires his revolver at Audrey II, only to discover that the bullets ricochet harmlessly off of the plant. In the happy ending, Audrey II is destroyed and Seymour, Audrey, and humanity survive. This happy ending is made somewhat ambiguous, however, with a final shot of a smiling Audrey II bud in Seymour and Audrey's front yard. Tisha Campbell was unavailable for the final appearance of the chorus girls in the yard and was replaced with a lookalike seen only from the waist down.[7]
"We had to do it," Oz recounted. "-We had to- do it in such a manner that the audience would enjoy the movie. It was very dissatisfying for both of us that we couldn't do what we wanted. So creatively, no, it didn't satisfy us and being true to the story. But we also understood the realities that they couldn't release the movie if we had that ending."[5] "We had to cut -the work-print- apart, and we never made a dupe of -the original ending-." At the time, the only copies of it that were made to be viewed were VHS work-print tapes given to few crew members.[10] The scene in which Seymour proposes to Audrey originally contained the reprise of "Suddenly, Seymour". This scene was re-shot and the reprise was placed later in the new ending.[7] In the final theatrical cut, the only miniatures that are retained are the New York City streets passing behind Steve Martin's motorcycle ride at the beginning of "Dentist!"[7] "When we did re-shoot the ending, the crowd reaction went over 50 percent in our favor. Before it was a point where they hated it so much, Warner probably wouldn't even release the movie," Oz said.[10]
Box office[edit]
Little Shop of Horrors, after a delay needed to complete the revised ending, was released on December 19, 1986 and was anticipated to do strong business over the 1986 holiday season.[11] The film grossed $38 million at the box office,[12] which, from the view point of the studio, was considered an underperformer. However, it became a smash hit upon its home video release in 1987 on VHS and Beta.
Critical reception[edit]
The film earned a very positive critical reception. Rotten Tomatoes retrospectively collected reviews to give it a score of 90% based on reviews from 48 critics, the general consensus states: "Remixing Roger Corman's B-movie by way of the Off-Broadway musical, Little Shop of Horrors offers camp, horror and catchy tunes in equal measure -- plus some inspired cameos by the likes of Steve Martin and Bill Murray."[13] On Metacritic, which uses an average of critics' reviews, the film has an 81% rating based on 15 reviews, indicating "universal acclaim" (14 positive reviews, 1 mixed, and no negative).[14] Richard Corliss of Time Magazine said, "You can try not liking this adaptation of the Off-Broadway musical hit -- it has no polish and a pushy way with a gag -- but the movie sneaks up on you, about as subtly as Audrey II."[15]
In The New York Times, Janet Maslin called it "a full-blown movie musical, and quite a winning one."[16] "All of the wonders of "Little Shop of Horrors" are accomplished with an offhand, casual charm. This is the kind of movie that cults are made of, and after "Little Shop" finishes its first run, I wouldn't be at all surprised to see it develop as one of those movies that fans want to include in their lives," said Roger Ebert in his review.[17] Oz's friend and Muppet colleague, Jim Henson, praised the film and said "the lip sync on the plant in that film is just absolutely amazing."[10]
- American Film Institute lists
- AFI's 100 Years...100 Songs:
- "Somewhere That's Green" – Nominated
- AFI's 100 Years of Musicals – Nominated
The film was also nominated for two Academy Awards, one for Best Visual Effects (lost to Aliens), the other for Best Original Song for Audrey II's new number, "Mean Green Mother From Outer Space". "Mean Green" was the first Oscar-nominated song to contain profanity in the lyrics and thus had to be slightly censored for the show. It lost to "Take My Breath Away" from Top Gun. It was also nominated for Best Motion Picture - Comedy/Musical (it lost to Hannah and Her Sisters) and Best Original Score (Miles Goodman) during the 44th Golden Globe Awards. The Score went to Ennio Morricone for The Mission.
Home media[edit]
Little Shop of Horrors was the first DVD to be recalled for content.[3] In 1998, Warner Bros. released a special edition DVD that contained approximately 23 minutes of unfinished footage from Oz's original ending, although it was in black and white and was missing some sound, visual, and special effects.[citation needed] Producer and rights owner David Geffen was not aware of this release until it made it to the stores. Geffen said, "They put out a black-and-white, un-scored, un-dubbed video copy of the original ending that looked like shit." As a result the studio removed it from shelves in a matter of days and replaced it with a second edition that did not contain the extra material. Geffen wanted to re-release the film to theaters with the original ending intact.[18] Geffen also claimed to have a color copy of the original ending, while the studio had lower quality, black and white duplicates as their own color print was destroyed in a studio fire years earlier. But Geffen had not known, until after the DVD was pulled, that the studio did not know there was no colored copy of the original ending in existence.[5]
In November 2011, Oz held a Q&A session at the Museum of the Moving Image in Astoria, Queens during a Henson themed exhibit. During the talk, he announced that the film would be released as a new special edition with the original ending restored.[19] Warner Bros. reconstructed and restored the ending in an alternate edit, with re-discovered color negatives of the sequence and the help of production notes from Frank Oz and others on the film's creative team. It was released on Blu-ray and DVD on October 9, 2012 with features returning from the original DVD.[20] It was initially subtitled as "The Intended Cut",[21] but changed to "The Director's Cut" once Oz began to support the release. The new edit was screened at the 50th New York Film Festival in the "Masterwork" line-up, alongside titles such as Laurence Olivier's Richard III and Heaven's Gate.[22]
- ^ "LITTLE SHOP OF HORRORS (PG)". Columbia-Cannon-Warner. British Board of Film Classification. January 27, 1987. Retrieved March 23, 2014.
- ^ "Roger Corman interview". Retrieved 2007-03-11.
- ^ a b "Little Shop of Reshoots". DVD Savant. November 20, 1999. Retrieved 2007-03-11.
- ^ "All Music". allmusic.com. Retrieved 13 June 2014.
- ^ a b c d e f g h i "Frank Oz: Muppets maestro discusses 'Little Shop of Horrors' and the remaking of his classics". Entertainment Weekly. May 15, 2012. Retrieved 2012-06-13.
- ^ "Little Shop - Deleted Scenes FOUND". Justn Hoskie. Retrieved 2013-08-27.
- ^ a b c d e f Frank Oz DVD commentary, Little Shop of Horrors (2000).
- ^ James Berardinelli. Review, Little Shop of Horrors, Reelviews.net, 1999.
- ^ "Frank Oz Interview".
- ^ a b c "An Evening with Jim Henson and Frank Oz". Aleza Makayla on YouTube. 2013-01-04. Retrieved 2013-08-27.
- ^ Mathews, Jack (December 24, 1986). "'Kong Lives' Dies At Box Office". Los Angeles Times. Retrieved 2012-06-10.
- ^ "Little Shop of Horrors (1986)". Box Office Mojo. Retrieved 2012-07-05.
- ^ Little Shop of Horrors at Rotten Tomatoes
- ^ Little Shop of Horrors at Metacritic
- ^ "Cinema: Green and Red for Christmas". Time Magazine. 1986-12-29. Retrieved 2013-08-27.
- ^ "The Screen: 'Little Shop of Horrors'". The New York Times. 1986-12-19. Retrieved 2013-08-27.
- ^ ""Little Shop of Horrors" by Roger Ebert". Chicago Sun-Times. 1986-12-19. Retrieved 2013-08-27.
- ^ Willman, Chris (March 6, 1998). "Horror of 'Horrors'!". Entertainment Weekly.
- ^ Ryan Dosier (2011-11-01). "The Muppet Mindset: Frank Oz Visits The Museum of Moving Image". Themuppetmindset.blogspot.com. Retrieved 2012-07-05.
- ^ "'Little Shop of Horrors' Makes Blu-ray Debut". Home Media Magazine. 2012-06-12. Retrieved 2012-07-05.
- ^ Latest MPAA Ratings Bulletin No. 2205 by Brad Brevet January 12 2012
- ^ Little Shop Movie to Screen at New York Film Festival with Original Violent Ending
External links[edit]
Wikiquote has quotations related to: Little Shop of Horrors (1986 film) |
- Little Shop of Horrors at the Internet Movie Database
- Little Shop of Horrors at Box Office Mojo
- Little Shop of Horrors at Rotten Tomatoes
- Little Shop of Horrors at Metacritic
- 1986 films
- English-language films
- 1980s comedy horror films
- 1980s musical films
- 1980s science fiction films
- American films
- American black comedy films
- American comedy horror films
- American comedy science fiction films
- American musical comedy films
- American rock musicals
- Films directed by Frank Oz
- Films about dentistry
- Films based on musicals
- Films based on musicals based on films
- Films featuring puppetry
- Films set in the 1960s
- Films set in New York City
- Musical film remakes
- Pinewood Studios films
- The Geffen Film Company films
- Warner Bros. films


text:
Stans end of season stock take - Checkout functionality is currently disabled
Stans end of season stock take - Checkout functionality is currently disabled
The Outwell Birdland M Tent can now benefit from the extra shelter, storage and usable living space provided by the Birdland M Front Extension.
The Birdland M Front Extension is an open ended canopy featuring four large panorama windows that blends perfectly with the main tent.
The features of this clip on extension include; extension security clips, fully seam-sealed Outtex 4000 polyester flysheet (4000mm HH protection), Duratec 12.7mm fibreglass poles, reinforced patches on all stress points, adjustable pegging points, luminous guylines.
Pack Size | 66x17cm |
Weight | 5.9kg |
Width | 285cm |
Length | 280cm |
Height | 205cm |
Colour | Foliage Green/Granite Green |
Some exlusions apply, for further delivery details for all destinations click here
Outwell Birdland M Front Extension - a solution to the need for good bird watching space!

subset: commoncrawl


text: Jammin' With You! is proud to have Lee Neckritz to provide saxophone lessons to children and families all across Boston and the Greater Boston Metro area. Lee will always show up at your door each week, energized and enthusiastic about bringing music into your home. As a member of the Hornitz, Lee knows his horns, and will provide a high quality saxophone instruction to anyone at any level and all ages. You're never too young or too old to learn to play the saxophone!!


text:
#1 busterkuri commented on Learn With Pokémon: Typing Adventure Taps Int...: I would almost be tempted to get this if it came out in the US. Aug 16, 2012
#2 busterkuri commented on Nintendo Confirms Its Holiday Hits in North Am...: Paper Mario and Professor Layton coming out within a few weeks of each other. I can't wait. Aug 14, 2012


text:
From the makers of the revolutionary SNOWSPORT® Utility Plow, comes the most creative and unique all terrain plow made specifically for your ATV or UTV. The SNOWSPORT® All Terrain Plow easily attaches to the front of your ATV or UTV with our model-specific 1-1/2" mount that is included with the snow blade. Turn your all terrain toy into a work horse and use it to plow snow in those hard to reach places where a full size snow plow can't go. The complete package comes standard with our one year warranty on all the ATV / UTV plow parts, and our three year warranty on the rubber cutting edge.
Our SNOWSPORT® ATV plow blades are available in 5 different blade lengths, so you can find the best all terrain plow for your ATV or UTV. Regardless of the length you choose, each blade is 14.5" high and has a 1" thick rubber cutting edge for fast and efficient snow removal. With no complicated wiring or levers to install or operate, it's never been easier to plow snow with your ATV! Use your ATV / UTV plow year-round for landscaping projects & more.
Enter in your information to find
the best options for you.
Check out the adjustable Hold Down Strap! Ideal for gravel, dirt and stubborn snow.
Read More >
Shield your hands from wind, cold and more with Hand Cuffs™ Handlebar Covers...
Read More >
Haul more with your ATV with our ATV Rear Receiver!
Read More >


text:
Celebrity Solstice
The Celebrity Cruise Line ship 'Solstice', debuting in November 2008, offers an aesthetic voyage to please the senses. Occupying just under 3000 passengers, it is the newest liner in the Celebrity Range, and creates a new class of luxury. Fully digital, the ship will offer wi-fi throughout, as well as a 24 hour cyber cafe. Indulge in the onboard 'AquaSpa', featuring a beautiful Persian Garden featuring new age music and therapy. Passengers can enjoy an exclusive glass blowing show, a first upon the high seas.
User Reviews
- Name Age # of Cruises Desitination
155 users found this review helpful.
Overall, our cruise experience was quite positive. We had a group of 11 and all of us had an enjoyable time on the Celebrity Solstice. Staff were friendly and worked diligently for everyone on...read more
125 users found this review helpful.
My husband, daughter and I sailed on the inaugural sailing of the Solstice. It was our first time sailing Celebrity so we were really looking forward to it. First off, let me say it is an...read more
205 users found this review helpful.
A beautiful ship, well kept and very clean. We were in the Aqua class which afforded us certain amenities included in the pricing but were generally disappointed with this decision as I will...read more
105 users found this review helpful.
As always, Celebrity has it's act together. All the staff are well trained and very helpful. As far as the ship is concerned, I was a little disappointed. I had heard so many good things about the...read more
245 users found this review helpful.
My husband, neice and nephew and I recently sailed on the Celebrity Solostice. We truly enjoyed the service, food and beautiful ship. We have been on Celebrity before, and this trip, with a few...read more
151 users found this review helpful.
We always enjoy Celebrity Cruises; The Crew is friendly and accommodating - Cabin was on Sky Deck in the rear --- right over the wake. We loved the view from the balcony, but it was a long walk...read more


text:
Order by Phone 800-220-4242(See availability)
Sign In | My Account | My Lists | Help
Be the first to review this item
This item is no longer available
This item ships for FREE with 2-Day Shipping on orders over $50. (Details)
Want it delivered on Wed, Apr 22? Order in-stock items in the next 15 hrs 29 mins and choose One-Day Shipping at checkout.
Shipping Weight:
5.85 pounds
Package Size:
15.5 x 10.4 x 3.9 inches
The Dremel 4000-6/50 High-Performance Rotary Tool Kit contains the Dremel 4000, which provides the highest performance and the most versatility of all Dremel rotary tools. Powerful, user-friendly, and built to last, this handy little tool helps you complete a range of crafting, hobby, and artisan projects. It comes with 50 accessories, six attachments, and a deluxe carrying case.
Dremel tools are known for their reliable performance, incredible versatility, and exceptional comfort. The Dremel 4000 builds on that tradition with a more responsive and comfortable design, as well as added features that reflect users' most asked-for improvements. It's ideal for carving, engraving, routing, grinding, sanding, cutting, cleaning, polishing, and more. The Dremel 4000's improved motor delivers smooth performance at all speeds from 5,000 to 35,000 RPM, and electronic feedback circuitry maintains a constant tool speed under load. Its slim, ergonomic body provides a 360-degree grip zone in every position for improved precision, while a variable-speed slide allows for both fast speed adjustment and consistency at your selected speed. A strategically placed on/off switch won't interfere with the grip during use.
The Dremel 4000 is durable and enjoyable to use, with a six-foot cord, pencil-grip nose cap for stability and replaceable motor brushes for long motor life. Easy-to-read speed settings make for accurate dialing, while an innovative shaft lock mechanism lets you lock the output shaft quickly when changing accessories. And the Dremel 4000 weighs just over one pound, so you can work all day without excessive strain on wrists, arms, or hands.
The Dremel 4000 is ideal when it comes to project flexibility. The kit comes with a lawn mower blade and yard tool sharpener attachment; the detail nose piece; a flex shaft attachment for added flexibility; safety shield attachment; circle cutter/straight edge guide; and the sanding/grinding guide that allows you to either guide a workpiece to a securely mounted rotary tool or guide the tool along the edge of a flat or beveled surface.
This tool comes with 50 accessories, including two high-speed cutters, four heavy-duty emery cut-off wheels, three sanding discs, and an engraving cutter. Polish beads and stones for a handmade necklace, sand dollhouse furniture or model airplane wings, cut a hole in tile to install an outlet, or sharpen your lawn mower blade and garden tools for a well-manicured yard. And when you're done, store everything in the included carrying case for easy organization and compact portability.
How can we improve our Product Description?
There are no customer reviews yet.
Be the first to review this item


text:
by Jessica J. Hellmann and Daniel John Sportiello
This essay was published in the NDIAS Quarterly, Fall 2013
[Scientific] thinking, born out of engineering and mathematics, implemented in computers, drawn from a mechanistic mind-set and a quest for prediction and control, leads its practitioners, inexorably I believe, to confront the most deeply human mysteries.
— Donella H. Meadows, Thinking in Systems: A Primer
The twenty-first century is likely to be remembered as the century of biology. We are gaining vast biological insights—and vast power over biological systems—because of high-throughput genetic sequencing technology and computer algorithms that handle vast amounts of data. These insights will give us not only the power to treat disease, but also the power to re-engineer the human body and even nature itself.
As science creates new opportunities, however, it also creates new challenges—ones, it seems, that we rarely anticipate. Those who invented rocketry surely never predicted the logic of mutually assured destruction. And those who invented the Internet thought to empower neither criminal syndicates nor child pornographers. This century will see technological and social changes that are equally profound—and we should think more about their consequences. But this can happen only if scientists—the people who study natural phenomena and invent technical solutions to human problems—are willing to confront the role that values play in determining the direction and application of their research.
Many scientists assume that they have nothing to do with questions of value. It is the task of the scientist, they assume, to reveal how things are—regardless of how the world wants them to be. But that misses the point. We live in a time of unprecedented scientific scope and power, and we can no longer pretend that our assumptions about which problems are most worthy of study and which solutions are most worthy of implementation are not rooted in value-laden judgements and decisions. If scientists intend to address the deepest needs of our world, they must play a role in the direction and application of scientific research—and doing this requires a discussion about social and scientific values. Moreover, since bringing values to bear on science is profoundly complex and potentially fraught with misunderstanding, scientists should engage in conversations with colleagues in the humanities, social sciences, and government. If scientists do not contribute to making decisions about values, others will do it for them, and these people may not have the public interest in mind. Also, non-scientists often lack the technical savvy to inform thoughtful dialogue about science and society.
Medicine is a standout case, where sticky normative and technical issues demand scientific engagement with questions of value. Thanks to collaboration among geneticists, biochemists, and physicians, for example, recent biological research has yielded extraordinarily powerful and extraordinarily precise treatments for cancer. This work shows us that cancer is influenced by genetics, environmental pollutants, and infectious agents (Morris et al. 1995; Czene et al. 2002; Soto and Sonnenschein 2010), but it cannot tell how much money and effort should be devoted to cancer detection, how much to cancer treatment, and how much to environmental cleanup and pollution reduction. Yet, cancer researchers can contribute to conversations about these issues in important ways and thereby change the trajectory of public health. For example, scientists can gather data that link dollars spent on environmental cleanup to decreased cancer rates (e.g., Morisawa et al. 2007), and they can help see that the results from their research are applied in the broad public interest and not manipulated for the benefit of a few.
Such social engagement can reap benefits for science as well, including the opportunity to work on vexing and socially relevant issues. With relevancy can come greater funding, a larger stage for presenting scientific findings, and opportunities for large-scale collaboration. With greater social interest in research can come greater attention to scientific accuracy and greater attention to replication and validation (e. g., Fang et al. 2012). In addition, creativity and inspiration can stem from interdisciplinary conversations in which one field stimulates thinking in another—sometimes in a way that, thanks to the limitations of disciplinary language and disciplinary paradigms, would not have been possible otherwise. For example, the economist Thomas Malthus's Essay on the Principle of Population, with its argument that the growth of any population is eventually checked by the scarcity of resources available to sustain it, had a definitive influence on the biologist Charles Darwin when he wrote his Origin of Species (Vorzimmer 1969).
This is not to say that all scientists must be engaged in conversations on the normative dimensions of their work or even have an interdisciplinary perspective. But some scientists—in fact, many—must be willing to confront normative considerations and work across disciplinary boundaries. This openness to questions of value also requires institutions that help scholars grapple with an increasing array of complex dilemmas and perennial questions about the human condition. After all, if the academy cannot help us to understand who we are and what we should do with the opportunities and constraints given to us, then it has little purpose at all.
Collaboration across the disciplines, in ways that bridge the descriptive and the normative, can produce significant results. Consider climate change. The climate is steadily but profoundly shifting due to the human emission of greenhouse gases. These climatic changes affect species and ecosystems worldwide, such that some species will decline and even go extinct. This risk to biodiversity should be an important motivation for reducing greenhouse gas emissions. But there might also be ways that humans, through ecosystem management, can help species and ecosystems deal with the effects of climate change even as concentrations of greenhouse gases steadily increase (Sala et al. 2008). All of these management strategies, however, come with costs, uncertainties, and possible side-effects, raising key questions about whether, when, and how to act. Scientists cannot answer these questions alone: they must participate in conversations about values to help society weigh the pros and cons of different courses of action and identify solutions for the greatest public good.
Scientists have learned a significant amount about species' responses to climate change and what management strategies might be appropriate. For example, research shows that species shift geographically to account for changing climatic conditions; the historical records suggest that geographic response dominated over evolutionary change as the leading biological response to climate warming (Davis and Shaw 2001). Yet, not all species shift when the climate changes. Less abundant and geographically restricted species probably decline in numbers and go extinct with warming, and at least one case is known from the fossil record (e.g., Jackson and Weng 1999). Given the rapid rate of modern climate change and a landscape dominated by habitat loss and human modification (Haberl et al. 2007), decline and extinction is likely to be more prominent today than it has been in the past (Periera 2010).
Here is where a climate-change biologist first confronts the normative. The science suggests that climate change is likely to have significant consequences for biodiversity. But this sensitivity isn't neutral—it arises from a change that humans caused, making culpability part of an otherwise scientific issue. Should we stand idly by and let nature (thanks to human-caused climate change) take its course, or should we intervene like doctors to try to achieve a particular outcome (an outcome that society values) and help species in their struggle with climate change?
Part of the answer to the question is technical. For example, we can evaluate the utility of different approaches. What strategies would be most effective, conferring the greatest benefit or incurring the least risk of negative side-effects? In exploring these "how" questions, however, we inevitably flirt with "why" questions, normative questions. For example, who should decide when action—such as moving a species to new areas—is appropriate? How much money should we spend in taking action? Can we defend inaction if critical biodiversity is lost from climate change? On the other hand, can we defend our actions if unanticipated consequences of those actions turn out to be significant?
The answers to these normative questions are unclear and may depend on the location, situation, and stakeholders in question, but they can be informed by scientific insight. Scientists can help decision-makers grapple with the uncertainty of nature, explaining the difference between noise and knowledge. They also can invite conversation about how we find ourselves in the climate-change predicament in the first place and help navigate complex decisions to the betterment of humanity and the environment. Finally, scientists are in a unique position to help society articulate the various steps it could take to protect the things it values (Hellmann et al. 2011).
Sometimes social values conflict, and science can play a role here as well. In the case of biodiversity and climate change, for example, few would argue that biodiversity has no value, but there are probably limits to its value. Should the government pass laws capping carbon emissions and levy taxes for expensive carbon-sequestration projects in order to protect biodiversity? Or should free markets and private property trump conservation objectives in some cases? Scientists can contribute two things to this kind of political debate. First, they can act as "measurers": they can demonstrate the consequences of species extinction and the costs and benefits of different courses of action (e.g., see Millennium Ecosystem Assessment 2005). Such measurements will likely have some impact upon deciding what to do. Second, scientists can act as citizens of goodwill, ensuring that debates are not hijacked by those with interests other than those of the public at heart—by, for example, corporations intent on gaining profit, no matter the harm they do to the environment.
Abdicating decisions about how scientific theories are applied is itself a decision about values. It implicitly values democratic and free-market processes with little or no participation by scientists as the best way to make decisions, including decisions about how to act in response to scientific conclusions. Yet, scientists are both citizens and frequent recipients of public funding, giving them a duty to participate in these decisions. This duty is magnified by the fact that scientists are often the ones who most fully understand their own research.
While we have argued for scientific engagement in the normative, we recognize that scientists have quite a bit to lose when engaging in discussions about values because they can at times sacrifice data-based objectivity and adherence to the scientific method. We are certainly not arguing that scientists replace their worldview with another, more subjective, perspective. Instead, we claim that engaging with the normative can be a natural and necessary extension of scientific inquiry and that scientists should have a seat at the table, so to speak, when questions of value arise. Because it is critical to delineate the descriptive from the normative in conversations and decisions about values, it is wise, in our opinion, for scientists to approach such conversations in an interdisciplinary way—ideally, in collaboration with humanists. This approach helps scientists avoid the risk of seeming too subjective and gives them a broader perspective. With interdisciplinary collaboration, furthermore, scientists can become more effective at communicating their own work to society, which is critical for making informed decisions in our complex world.
Czene, K. C., P. Lichtenstein, and K. Hemminki. 2002. Environmental and heritable causes of cancer among 9.6 million individuals in the Swedish family-cancer database. International Journal of Cancer 99: 260-266.
Davis, M. B., and R. G. Shaw. 2001. Range shifts and adaptive responses to Quaternary climate change. Science 292: 673-679.
Fang, F. C, R. G. Steen, and A. Casadevall. 2012. Misconduct accounts for the majority of retracted scientific publications. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 109: 16751-16752.
Haberl, H., K.-H. Erb, F. Krausmann, V. Gaube, A. Bondeau, C. Plutzar, S. Gingrich, W. Lucht, M. Fischer-Kowalski, 2007. Quantifying and mapping the human appropriation of net primary production in earth's terrestrial ecosystems. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 104, 12942-12947.
Hellmann, J. J., V. J. Meretsky, and J. S. McLachlan. 2011. Strategies for conserving biodiversity under a changing climate. Pages 363-288 In: Hannah, L., ed. Saving a Million Species: Extinction Risk from Climate Change. Island Press, Washington, DC.
Jackson, S. T., and C. Weng. 1999. Late Quaternary extinction of a tree species in eastern North America. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 96: 13847-13852.
Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. 2005. Ecosystems and Human Well-Being: Synthesis. Island Press, Washington, DC.
Morisawa, S., T. Fukami, M. Yoshidac, M. Yoenda, and A. Nekayama. 2007. Applicability of Mathematical Model for Evaluating Cancer Mortality Risk. Journal of Risk Research 10: 853-869.
Morris, J. D. H., A. L. W. F. Eddelston, and T. Crook. 1995. Viral infection and cancer. The Lancet 346: 754–758.
Periera, H. M., P. W. Leadley, V. Proença, R. Alkemade, J. P. W. Scharlemann, J. F. Fernandez-Manjarrés, M. B. Araújo, P. Balvanera, R. Biggs, W. W. L. Cheung, L. Chini, H. D. Cooper, E. L. Gilman, S. Guénette, G. C. Hurtt, H. P. Huntington, G. M. Mace, T. Oberdorff, C. Revenga, P. Rodrigues, R. J. Scholes, U. R. Sumalia, and M. Walpole. 2010. Scenarios for global biodiversity in the 21st century. Science 330: 1496.
Sala, E. O., F. S. Chapin, J. J. Armesto, E. Berlow, J. Bloomfield, R. Dirzo, E. Huber-Sanwalkd, L. F. Huenneke, R. B. Jackson, A. Kinzig, R. Leemans, D. M. Lodge, H. A. Mooney, M. Oesterheld, N. L. Poff, M. T. Sykes, B. H. Walker, M. Walker, and D. H. Wall. 2000. Global biodiversity scenarios for the year 2100. Science 287: 1770-1774.
Soto, A. M., and C. Sonnenschein. 2010. Environmental causes of cancer: endocrine disruptors as carcinogens. Nature Reviews Endocrinology 6: 363-370.
Vorzimmer, P. 1969. Darwin, Malthus, and the Theory of Natural Selection. Journal of the History of Ideas 30, no. 4: 527–542.
Adapting Nature to Climate Change
This blog explores climate change impacts on nature, strategies that humans can use to help nature adapt to climate change, academia, science education, and environmental policy
Friday, November 22, 2013
Monday, November 4, 2013
A vision for research: revisited
This blog was originally written for Leopold Leadership 3.0.
A bit more than a year ago, my lab and I spent a day trying to figure out who we were and what we were about. We wanted to express this identity to ourselves—to help keep us on track and to give us purpose—and we wanted to express it to the outside world. I blogged about the process that we used in our self-exploration, and it's been great to see other labs, like Chris Buddle's, give it a try and share their wisdom.
From that process—the process of articulating a mission and vision for our research group—my students and I learned a number of things about ourselves. We learned that we all have different research questions (though the PI shares most of them!); we have different research methods and different stages of career. But we share a common objective. We work to see ecology and climate science inform decisions that protect people and nature. We also all strive for excellence in the work we do. Writing this shared vision down helped—a least for a little while—bring the lab together.
A vision statement should be something you want your organization to hope to achieve, something that reflects your goals and ambitions. A good vision statement should be something like Teach for America's: "One day, all children in this nation will have the opportunity to attain an excellent education." This vision doesn't say a thing about the tasks that teachers do.
In making a statement for our lab, we brainstormed about how we want the world to be and how we want it to be changed or improved through our scientific work. In the day-to-day life of science, teaching, and research, we tend to emphasize productivity, mastery, and progress, the number of papers and grants. But a vision is the reason you do all of those things. Vision also is something that grad students, postdocs, undergrads, and even PIs don't get to talk about and write down everyday.
Today, I find that we don't reference our vision, or our mission, statement as much as we probably could or should. We mention it from time to time in lab discussion. We introduce it to new members of the lab. But I now think that group visioning should be a repeated exercise. The statement should be re-crafted from time to time. I also think that the activity of making the vision statement may be more important than having the statement itself, at least from the point of the view of group dynamics.
Our current vision statement does help me as a PI, however. As our group grows and the scope of our work steadily expands, there are more and more opportunities, different directions we could head, different projects we could initiate, and different students we could take on. I think frequently about whether a new project or a new collaboration will advance our vision, as much as I think about whether it will lead to good papers or new streams of funding.
So I think that visioning with a research group is a good idea, maybe not just once but periodically. It doesn't have to be a formal process, and folks like Chris Buddle and Elena Bennett have a number of good ideas to share. Working with one's research group to craft a collective mission and vision is just another way of stopping and taking stock. Taking stock provides clarity of purpose, and doing it as a group can elevate your collective endeavors to a new level.
Monday, June 17, 2013
Sharing the results of federally-funded research
The National Science Foundation requires that all grant recipients submit annual and final reports. I just submitted a final report for our grant, "Assessing temperature-related changes in introgression of hybridizing species across space and time." In the spirit of promoting the results of federally-funded research, I thought that I'd share my Project Outcomes Report. It is intended for a general audience. Publications on this research are forth-coming!
"Our research
aimed to understand how two related organisms that interbreed (hybridize) have
responded and will respond to climate change. Many studies have observed the movement
of entire species in response to changing climate, but the movement of a entire
species is just one possible reaction to climate change. In order to better
understand the complexities of how organisms adapt to a changing environment, we
must also look within species to see how traits and genes within a species'
range are moving and adjusting to climatic change. These traits and genes
determine how an organism will be affected by climate change: where helpful
genes are lacking, populations can decline; and where new genes arrive,
evolutionary rescue can occur. Regions (or "zones") of hybridization between
related species are ideal places to study the movement of traits within and
among species because, theoretically, genes can move across geography
independent of the species that contain them. Our NSF-funded research focused
on this lesser-studied aspect of climate change science: the movement of genes
within and across species under climate change and changes in the flow of
genetic information that results.
We examined
the following questions: 1) Have traits (genes) moved across geography in two
species of butterfly, Papilio glaucus and
P. canadensis, in response to recent climatic
change? 2) How do the parental forms of the two species and their hybrids
perform under simulated climate and climate change? Papilio glaucus and P.
canadensis are ideal candidates for answering these questions because they
have been studied previously and they hybridize over a wide area in the upper
Midwest US.
To answer the
first question, we compared specimens of butterflies that were collected in the
1980s and again after 2007 from a wide area in Illinois and Wisconsin that spans
the zone of hybridization. We measured these specimens for wing traits and
genetic markers that are thought to be related to climate and for traits and
markers that are likely not climate-related (control). We found that some
traits appear to have moved northward in the last 30 years, while others are
not. The ones that have shifted northward appear to be related to temperature
and are associated with warming that has occurred most strongly in the southern
portion of the hybrid zone. This result suggests that climate change can shape
the geographic distribution of traits within species, but not alter others. In
other words, climate change is altering the association of traits in these
butterflies and the genetic composition of them.
To answer the
second question, we performed an experiment with pure forms of each butterfly
species and hybrid crosses that we created in the lab. We then exposed
experimental animals to a range of climatic conditions that span the hybrid
zone. For the northerly species and its hybrids, this experiment simulated a
warming event. We found significant differences in the timing of life events in
the two species and in the different types of hybrids, and these differences
were affected by climate treatment. To make future projections with this
information, we built a model that predicts the number of generations that will
occur across Wisconsin under alternative climate scenarios. The number of
generations per year affects the amount and direction of gene movement between
the species and can be used to infer future changes in the northward flow of
traits and genes.
undergraduate students participated in this research project, one funded by the
NSF on a supplement to this grant and six from other sources. One graduate
student is earning a PhD with this project, and three full- or part-time
research staff advanced their technical skills and career path with employment
on this project. Work on this grant also enabled public presentations and
outreach by the PI and the graduate student about climate change and its
ecological consequences, and the project compiled a large and highly unique
database of thousands of specimens from the hybrid zone. This resource will be
made accessible to future researchers. Protocols and equipment from this
project also informed research and conservation planning for other Lepidoptera,
including one federally-listed endangered species. Most importantly, this work advances
our understanding of how climate change can alter living systems, a crucial goal
given the amount of warming that is projected to occur in the coming decades
and centuries."
Wednesday, May 22, 2013
Guest blogs at Nature with Leopold colleagues
Several Leopold Leadership Fellows and I have a series of guests posts at the Soapboxscience blog at Nature this week. A series of three posts address #reachingoutsci and the opportunities and challenges that confront scientists in making their research understood by and useful to society. The series arises from a session at the 2013 AAAS symposium, The Beauty and Benefits of Escaping the Ivory Tower. (Check out #AAASbeit on Twitter.)
Highlights from the blogs...
Part I:
Bridging the Science-to-Society Gap
"This shift in what society needs—not just science for science's sake, but to also using science to help recognize and solve societal problems—means that the goals of communicating science have to shift as well. Society now needs information from scientists not just in the form of interesting facts assembled in hard-to-find places, but especially as recommendations about how to manage the biosphere to maintain what humans depend on for their physical, economic, and emotional well-being. Scientists, after all, are the people paid to produce and collect the knowledge that is relevant to the world."
Part II:
The Twenty-fifth Hour of the Day: Finding Time for Outreach
"Is your career compromised if you spend time on outreach rather than science, or is engagement all that really counts in a world urgently in need of scientific leadership? Fortunately, new studies suggest that these tasks aren't necessarily a conflict—those scientists who reach beyond the boundaries of traditional science-doing also appear to be the most productive scientists, probably because they find inspiration, cutting-edge ideas, and novel ways of working while directly engaging with society."
Part III:
Unclogging Institutional Conduits Between Research and Outreach
"Universities aren't doing nearly enough to help or reward those who want to engage outside academe. While most institutions pay lip service to outreach, salary and promotion are usually determined by first considering "research productivity," (i.e., numbers of publications and grants), and second by "teaching effectiveness," (i.e., number of students and course evaluations). Highly focused pre-tenure faculty are particularly spread painfully thin. The connections needed for meaningful dialogue with decision-makers and the public take time to build, especially if you lack experience. Collectively, we've spent hundreds of hours struggling with effects ways to incorporate outreach and engagement in our academic lives. We believe that practical change must come—at least in part—from academic institutions in order to meaningfully expand the role of science outreach."
Highlights from the blogs...
Part I:
Bridging the Science-to-Society Gap
"This shift in what society needs—not just science for science's sake, but to also using science to help recognize and solve societal problems—means that the goals of communicating science have to shift as well. Society now needs information from scientists not just in the form of interesting facts assembled in hard-to-find places, but especially as recommendations about how to manage the biosphere to maintain what humans depend on for their physical, economic, and emotional well-being. Scientists, after all, are the people paid to produce and collect the knowledge that is relevant to the world."
Part II:
The Twenty-fifth Hour of the Day: Finding Time for Outreach
"Is your career compromised if you spend time on outreach rather than science, or is engagement all that really counts in a world urgently in need of scientific leadership? Fortunately, new studies suggest that these tasks aren't necessarily a conflict—those scientists who reach beyond the boundaries of traditional science-doing also appear to be the most productive scientists, probably because they find inspiration, cutting-edge ideas, and novel ways of working while directly engaging with society."
Part III:
Unclogging Institutional Conduits Between Research and Outreach
"Universities aren't doing nearly enough to help or reward those who want to engage outside academe. While most institutions pay lip service to outreach, salary and promotion are usually determined by first considering "research productivity," (i.e., numbers of publications and grants), and second by "teaching effectiveness," (i.e., number of students and course evaluations). Highly focused pre-tenure faculty are particularly spread painfully thin. The connections needed for meaningful dialogue with decision-makers and the public take time to build, especially if you lack experience. Collectively, we've spent hundreds of hours struggling with effects ways to incorporate outreach and engagement in our academic lives. We believe that practical change must come—at least in part—from academic institutions in order to meaningfully expand the role of science outreach."
Monday, May 6, 2013
5th & 6th grader questions about climate change
The following came up after my presentation, "What is global warming?" to 5th and 6th graders at the Stanley Clark School, South Bend, IN. Thanks to the students for being so attentive and for their great follow-up questions!
1. What state produces the most CO2?
Wyoming releases the most greenhouse gases per person. The next are North Dakota, Alaska, and West Virginia--all are big states for oil or coal production. In total emissions, Texas emits the most, followed by California--these are both big states with quite a lot of people. Indiana is the 5th largest emitter of greenhouse gases in total and 11th based on emissions per person. Indiana does not have a lot of energy efficiency in place and relies heavily on coal to produce electricity. Burning coal releases quite a lot of CO2. You can see all the state rankings for yourself at: http://www.google.com/publicdata/explore?ds=z8cs5f2mcjthet_.
2. Will human civilization still be here in 20-30 years? Will climate change cause the end of the earth? Will the earth be too hot to live on? Will the world end, or will all life on earth die because of global warming?
3. What does you lab study at Notre Dame?
My lab studies the effects of climate on species and ecosystems, especially plants and insects. It is important to know how insects react to changing the climate because they play an important role in healthy ecosystems. We also study ways that people can manage species and ecosystems under climate change to try to preserve them for future generations. Check out our lab web page: http://www.nd.edu/~hellmann.
4. How much does deforestation affect global warming?
5. How long will it take for global cooling to come?
Global cooling isn't going to come for a long, long time, many thousands of years. The peak of the next ice age probably won't happen for about 80,000 years. The earth naturally goes in and out of ice ages based on variations of the earth's orbit. We are in one of the warm periods right now, called the Holocene, and we have been in this warm period for about 12,000 years. Interestingly, human emissions of greenhouse gases has pushed our climate way outside of the normal ups and downs that it experiences during and between the ice ages. So it's interesting question--one that scientists don't quite understand yet--if our changes to the climate will slow down or delay the start of the next ice age. When we talk about negative effects of global warming, however, we are usually thinking about how it will affect the next few generations of people, not our distant ancestors.
6. Is there such thing as an ozone layer? How does it affect the environment?
7. What causes acid rain?
8. If some of us start to stop releasing greenhouse gases, what effect will it have on the earth?
9. What is the strongest greenhouse gas?
10. How were there alligators in the Arctic?
11. Can we stop global warming completely?
12. Could the world ever be "fixed," come back to its natural temperature?
13. Will the government ever do something about global warming?
14. What will happen to the ocean under global warming?
15. What areas does global warming affect the most?
16. Is it true that global warming will happen anyway so there's no need to try to stop it?
17. How much CO2 does the average car release?
According to the US EPA, the average care releases 4.8 metric tons of CO2 equivalents per year. (CO2 equivalents allows one to think about all of the greenhouse gases coming out of a car together in one calculation.) Check out the EPA webpage for more calculations: http://www.epa.gov/cleanenergy/energy-resources/refs.html. We recently had a speaker visit Notre Dame (David Archer from the University of Chicago) who explained that each gallon of gasoline that we burn in our cars traps thousands-of-times more energy in the atmosphere than the energy value we get from burning the gas in the first place.
Tuesday, April 30, 2013
Reflections on science communication & outreach--part of a blog carnival
On April 30, COMPASS published a commentary a paper in PLOS Biology on the journey from science outreach to meaningful engagement. This post is part of a series of reactions, reflections, and personal experiences to expand the conversation. Track the conversation by reading the summary or searching for #reachingoutsci.
I was a new assistant professor counting plants in the rain when I first truly realized that time was in short supply. The work was progressing slowly and my mood was soggy. I had to write a promised blog post for the class I was missing; I had a grant proposal due the next day that still needed to be routed through the research office; and I was having trouble with one of my field assistance who was going to need a heart-to-heart chat very soon. Don't get me wrong. I had been busy and frantic before. Grad students are stressed; postdocs work hard; and I've never met an undergrad who hasn't pulled at least one all-nighter. But I realized that this time constraint that I was facing wasn't acute. It was chronic, and it was likely going to get worse because I only had more that I wanted to do.
I was a new assistant professor counting plants in the rain when I first truly realized that time was in short supply. The work was progressing slowly and my mood was soggy. I had to write a promised blog post for the class I was missing; I had a grant proposal due the next day that still needed to be routed through the research office; and I was having trouble with one of my field assistance who was going to need a heart-to-heart chat very soon. Don't get me wrong. I had been busy and frantic before. Grad students are stressed; postdocs work hard; and I've never met an undergrad who hasn't pulled at least one all-nighter. But I realized that this time constraint that I was facing wasn't acute. It was chronic, and it was likely going to get worse because I only had more that I wanted to do.
One of the most important "more" that I wanted to do was engage with
the people affected by my research. I realized that while standing in the rain,
and I made a commitment to myself to try to be efficient and deliberate in my
work choices. If I wanted to be accessible and relevant, for example, I might
start by training someone else to stand in the rain counting plants. (Of
course, every ecologists needs to spend at least some time in the rain to stay close to their study system.) My
initial outreach and engagement attempts—once I had secured more field
help—were initially targeted at the individuals who managed the land where we
my students and I were performing research. I wanted to attend their planning
meetings, have my grad students speak in their regional management conferences,
and produce meaningful reports that helped them make decisions. I'm not sure
that ever accomplished the latter, but we were able to draw regional attention
to our research and the issues that we were studying.
Ten years later, my basic goals in outreach remain the same—help to
make sure that what we are finding finds its way into the hands of someone who
can use it and in a useful form—but the scope of my research has grown. Again,
I'm faced with choices about how best to spend my time. I'm not so naïve to
think that science by itself will change the world. In fact, if changing the
world were my primary goal, I probably should have chosen another field. I
chose to be an environmental scientist because I enjoy the mixture of discovery
for the purpose only of knowing how nature works and the significance
of those findings to society.
To achieve my outreach goals today, I have tried to implement a few
things. First, I've tried to obtain more training, primarily through the
Leopold Leadership Program and COMPASS but also through consultation with
colleagues whose work in this area I really admire. Second, I've tried to kill
as many birds as possible with one stone. For example, I've started using social
media an outreach medium to talk about the scientific and science-social issues
that I think are important, but I also use this medium to keep track of what is
going on in my field and environmental news. In other words, I've switched from
other modes of being informed to spend time in a place where I can also
practice communication, accessibility, and transparency. And it's quick. Third,
I try not to let my worries take up too much of my time. I care deeply, for
example, about the opinions of my peers and their evaluation of my scientific work.
But that doesn't mean that everything I do is intended for a peer audience, and
I don't need to continually fret about their opinions of my outreach and
engagement (though I still do about promotion!).
I try to remember with some regularity that feeling that I had while standing
in the rain. Over the life of a career, I know that I will feel that same
sensation over and over again. But I'm trying to continually refine and
redefine my priorities, make sure that my efforts are well-aligned with those
priorities, and remember to seek help and assistance where my time and talents
are not best invested. I'm grateful for a lab group to help me with all of
this, and I hope that all of my students also have their rainy moment some day
soon—and I hope that they become better scientists for it.
Tuesday, April 23, 2013
Science in the crosshairs: the public role of science and scientists--a reply
I delivered the following comments today as a reply to a conference presentation by Ken Miller (Brown University). Maybe these comments will stimulate thinking by others on the topic of science and public outreach. I'm not a scholar in this area, but I have spent some time thinking about how I plan to negotiate the public sphere as a scientist myself.
Conference: Public Intellectualism in Comparative Context
April 23, 2013
Miller's title: "Science in the Crosshairs: the public role of science and scientists"
I agree with Dr. Miller that many scientists shy away from
the limelight implied by the term "public intellectual," preferring that data
carry the public debate over personality and sound bites. But I want to spend my few minutes suggesting that this disinterested
view has serious short-comings, and I want to suggest another type of public
scientist, one mentioned but not expanded upon by Dr. Miler. This other type of
scientific public intellectual is one who has a seat at the table of democratic
decision-making. Like Dr. Miller mentioned for role of scientific popularizer,
I think this policy-engaged scientist has been undervalued or unappreciated by
fellow scientists, by academia, and by politicians. I hope that this can begin
to change, and there fortunately are several role models who are leading the
Definition of "scientist"
First, when I refer to "scientist," I am thinking primarily
of academics or government individuals with PhDs in natural science who pursue
or oversee some original research in the natural sciences. This participation
in the research process and in the scientific literature provides topical
expertise. One can find scientists in other roles, of course, such as in
non-governmental organizations, and my thinking may or may not apply to them,
depending on the degree to which they pursue research and how much they
advocate for particular outcomes.
Information deficit—a
model debunked
To argue for my view of the scientific public intellectual,
I first have to dispose of the passive view that science by itself can affect
social outcomes. The view that information alone when presented to those who
"need" it will catalyze change, innovation, or progress has been roundly
disproven. Known as the information deficit model, it assumes that the public
has insufficient knowledge about science and that public opinion would be
swayed if only people were supplied with reliable and accurate information
about nature. But more information often does not change people's views because
opinions are often formed by intuition, religious belief, personal experience,
and other cultural and psychological factors. This implies a need from more
steady engagement by scientists to interweave scientific information with these
other opinion sources.
We can see belief in the information deficit model in much of
science communication and science outreach, but many scientists do—myself included—dosee a more active role for science in social deliberations. In other words, it
is not just that science is relevant and could be informative in the right
hands but that science is a central and essential tool of public
problem-solving. A variety of data suggest that some key scientific issues are underappreciated,
misinterpreted or misconstrued, despite an abundance of data and countless
reports written for policymakers. For example, recent public surveys by the PewResearch Center suggest that 70% of Americans believe that average global
temperature is increasing, but there is a large partisan divide over whether
there is solid scientific evidence that human emissions of greenhouse gases are
causing modern climate change. 57% of Democrats think that recent climate
change is caused mostly by human activity, but only 19% of Republicans think
that. It appears that party membership affects one's adherence to natural laws.
Much more engagement, probably with a wider range of people, appears necessary
to convince people about the state of scientific knowledge.
Politization of
At the same time, science in policy feels dangerous to many
scientists. The features that Dr. Miller described about science—uncertainty
and unending progress—implies that science never really knows anything, and this
makes it an easy political target. There is risk in saying "there is a 95%
chance"—some interest group unbound by the necessity of revealing its
assumptions and uncertainties can step in to fill a perceived certainty void. In
addition, scientists are often poor competitors in the public sphere. For
example, they often lead with the details instead of the main conclusions, and
they don't have much practice speaking in a non-technical language. Scientistsmust find ways to simply communicate but not mislead. This is hard to do in the
era of the sound bite, dueling cable channels, and social media. Thus, being an
effect participant in the social dialog on science takes time, training and
Scientists as valued
stakeholders, not "deciders"
In my argument for scientists as policy participants, I'm
not saying that scientists should be the "deciders." I agree with Dr. Miller
that scientists have no more knowledge about right and wrong, just or unjust,
than anyone else (and, in fact, they might be quite uneducated on some of these
issues). But I do believe that science should have a seat the social table.
In other words, I am not arguing scientists should have the
last word on climate change, the Keystone XL pipeline, or childhood
vaccinations, for example. But I do feel that scientific insights, embodied by individual
scientists that we might call public intellectuals, should be an integral part
of social debate. The should engages not as outside consultants who pop in and out
with their data—the information deficit model—but as knowledgeable experts,
armed with a useful philosophical method—the scientific method—that has been
shown to have social value for millennia.
In my view, the public intellectual should not craft or
advocate for particular policies but offer a sustained voice that raises key
issues and keeps an emphasis on scientific issues that affect the public
interest. They also can help to analyze the efficacy of particular policy
tools. The policy environments in which scientist can—and I think should—engage
do not need to be highly charged, and they could be narrow or broad in scope. But
the hallmark is engagement rather than consultation.
Necessary institutional
To achieve my view of the scientific public intellectual, a
couple of changes are necessary. I mention them briefly, but these changes are
not easy or quick. First, engagement has to be rewarded by the institutionsthat hire and employ scientists. Engaged scientists also need institutional
support so that they can sustain active research programs, because research directly
informs and continually shapes their expertise. Second—and perhaps more
importantly—we need some kind of political transformation that views science
and scientists as something other than another special interest group, with
knowledge and information that is just as good as the next voter or lobbyist.
Public intellectual role
Many scientists used to worry about being called a Carl
Sagan—someone more interested in TV ratings than pursuing scientific
discoveries, an ego looking for public validation. But this negative view of
public science figures is changing, particularly with the rise of more and more
role models who show it is possible to mix science with public education and outreach.
A few examples from my own field of environment and energy come to mind: JohnHoldren [physicist and science advisor to Pres. Obama], Jane Lubchenco
[ecologist and former head of NOAA], Paul Ehrlich [ecologist, author, and
public figure], Stephen Schneider [climatologist, author, and tireless popularize
of climate change and climate science], and Rachel Carson.
But these models are more than just popularizers. They are
more like medical clinicians, family doctors with information at hand and an
established method for obtaining and interpreting that information. The
doctor's opinions should be adjudicated with other important voices, not just
as a popularizer or a thought-provoker but as a useful stakeholder that
improves the outcome of deliberation.
On this subject, see also a recent panel at the University of Notre Dame conference, Climate Change and the Common Good about science as a public interest.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)


text:
U.S. Energy Secretary Steven Chu today announced the selection of 71 university research project awards as part of the Department of Energy's investments in cutting-edge nuclear energy research and development (R&D). Under the Nuclear Energy University Program (NEUP), these 71 projects will receive approximately $44 million over three years to advance new nuclear technologies in support of the nation's energy goals. By helping to develop the next generation of advanced nuclear technologies, the Nuclear Energy University Program will play a key role in addressing the global climate crisis and moving the nation toward greater use of nuclear energy.
"As a zero-carbon energy source, nuclear power must be part of our energy mix as we work towards energy independence and meeting the challenge of global warming," said Secretary Chu. "The next generation of nuclear power plants – with the highest standards of safety, efficiency and environmental protection – will require the latest advancements in nuclear science and technology. These research and develop ment university awards will ensure that the United States continues to lead the world in the nuclear field for years to come."
Selected R&D projects include 31 U.S. universities that will act as lead research institutions for projects in more than 20 states. Other universities, industries, and national laboratories will serve as collaborators and research partners. Under the Nuclear Energy University Program, DOE will support projects in the following nuclear energy research fields: the Advanced Fuel Cycle Initiative (AFCI), the Next Generation Nuclear Plant (NGNP) also known as Generation IV Nuclear Energy Systems, Investigator-Initiated Research (IIR), and Light Water Reactor Sustainability (LWRS).
In keeping with the Obama Administration's commitment to training the next generation of American scientists, Secretary Chu also announced that DOE is accepting applications for individual nuclear science and engineering scholarships and fellowships under the Nuclear Energy University Program. As part of the Department's efforts to recruit and train the next generation of nuclear scientists and engineers, DOE is offering approximately $2.9 million in university fellowships and scholarships to support students entering the nuclear science and engineering fields. Further details on the Request for Applications are available at:http://www.caesenergy.org.
Contracts for the R&D projects are expected to be awarded by September 30, 2009 by the Battelle Energy Alliance, LLC (BEA), a Management and Operating contractor for DOE at the Idaho National Laboratory (INL).
Advanced Fuel Cycle Initiative (AFCI)
Next Generation Nuclear Plant (NGNP)/Generation IV Nuclear Systems
Investigator-Initiated Research (IIR)
Neutron Damage and MAX Phase Ternary Compounds |
Drexel University |
Maximum Fuel Utilization in Fast Reactors without Chemical Reprocessing |
University of California, Berkeley |
Developing a High Thermal Conductivity Fuel with Silicon Carbide Additives |
University of Florida |
University of Idaho |
University of Idaho |
Utilization of Methacrylates and Polymer Matrices for the Synthesis of Ion Specific Resins |
University of Nevada, Las Vegas |
Improved LWR Cladding Performance by EPD Surface Modification Technique |
University of Wisconsin, Madison |
Georgia Institute of Technology |
Improved Fission Neutron Data Base for Active Interrogation of Actinides |
University of Michigan |
Light Water Reactor Sustainability (LWRS)
Advanced Models of LWR Pressure Vessel Embrittlement for Low Flux-High Fluence Conditions |
University of California, Santa Barbara |


text:
Caution flag's up, Racegirl!
As we often discuss, the factors in play in these cases do not offer a rigid scorecard. A registrant or applicant can win on six of them, but lose the seventh and see that seventh one carry the day.
9 women who made big in-house moves in 2014
While there remains work to be done to be done, it's clear that women in law are beginning to be seen on a more equal footing.
Year in review: Top Inside trends of 2014
Join us now as we look back at some of the biggest trends of 2014 inside the boardroom and pertaining to the lives of lawyers. Click through the slideshow to travel back in time and see what we were talking about throughout the year.
Partnership for American Innovation lends support to White House crowdsourcing initiative
The PAI comprises some heavyweights of the American economy. Apple, DuPont, Ford, GE, IBM, Microsoft and Pfizer have all banded together to promote the importance of innovation to the American economy, and the group has thrown its support behind this initiative.
Sager will bring experience, perspective to new law firm role
"One reason I landed on Ballard was that we share the same core values," he explains.
Tom Sager, former DuPont general counsel, now partner at Ballard Spahr
A science and engineering leader's loss is a national law firm's gain, as Tom Sager has stepped down as general counsel of DuPont to join Ballard Spahr LLP.
Chinese national indicted for stealing agricultural secrets
On July 1, US authorities arrested a Chinese citizen in connection with an elaborate plan to steal and transport specific strains of corn from some of the largest agro-companies in the country.
Fox named SVP and GC of DuPont, Sager to retire
The former general counsel of Sunoco, Inc., Stacy L. Fox, has been named senior vice president and general counsel of DuPont, effective Oct. 1.
The in-house lawyer's value proposition (Part 1)
It's not immediately apparent to many in-house lawyers what the "competition" looks like. It is much less apparent why an in-house legal department should focus on beating it. The answer is that there are increasingly innovative choices on how legal services can be provided.
DuPont supports the role of patents in innovation
One of those companies, DuPont, prides itself in its innovation, and believes that patent rights help it achieve its goals.


text:
Trauma and PTSD
Panic Attacks
Alternatives to Conventional, Drug Focused Care
Spiritual Healing
Discernment & Research
Bible Research
Trauma and PTSD
Panic Attacks
- Panic Attacks! Can You Really Stop Them? (several helpful articles)
- The Key to Overcoming Panic Attacks
Alternatives to Conventional, Drug Focused Care
Spiritual Healing
- Living God Ministries with Aaron Budjen. Aaron came to know Jesus as his Messiah while preparing to become a Rabbi. Strongly distinguishing the old and new covenants, Aaron presents the grace and truth of the Lord Jesus Christ from a Judaic and historic frame of reference. (Read the personal testimony of Aaron Budjen.) All messages may be downloaded free; some of his excellent studies include: Atonement and Propitiation; Understanding Forgiveness; The Sabbath Law; Understanding the Tithe; The History and Purpose of Baptism; Faith and Works; and many more, including verse by verse teaching through the books of Acts, Galatians, Hebrews, Romans and Isaiah.
- Thru the Bible Radio Network with J. Vernon McGee (1904-1988). His down-to-earth expository messages reveal Christ as the centerpiece of Scripture and gives a true understanding of the grace and love of God and our position in Christ. He goes through the entire Word of God in 5 years (M-F), alternating between the O.T. and N.T. Broadcast in over 130 languages around the world. Contact the ministry for sermon messages on the Covenants, the Church and Israel, Dispensations, Grace, Ten Commandments, Apostasy, and many more.
- Full Assurance (Wonderful assurance for those doubting their salvation; by the late H. A. Ironside.)
- Holiness: The False and the True (The fruitless struggle to attain holiness; covers true sanctification; by the late H. A. Ironside) (PDF)
- H. A. Ironside's Notes on Galatians (Goes through the book of Galatians. The late Ironside's commentaries are a standard and have stood the test of time.)
- The Work of Christ (His past work, present work, future work. Excellent article by the late Arno C. Gaebelein.)
- Abide in Christ (Classic online book by Andrew Murray; very inspiring and profound.)
- The Power of the Blood of Jesus (Classic online book by Andrew Murray, revealing the glorious power of the blood of Jesus and the wonderful blessings procured for us by it.)
- Solitudes Music (Dan Gibson [1922-2006] was a world-renowned naturalist and a pioneer in the field of sound recording. We have found his "Rocky Mountain Suite" and "Solitudes Nature Sound Collection" very helpful for relieving stress and facilitating mental relaxation.)
- Faith Music Missions (Conservative Christ-honoring music)
- Great Hymns of the Faith
Discernment & Research
- Lighthouse Trails Research Project (Exposing the Dangers of Contemplative Spirituality and spiritual deception in the church)
- The Lamp Ministry (Articles exposing apostasy and error within Christendom; includes ecumenism and Charismatic/Pentecostal issues)
- Spiritual Research Network (Warning about the dangers of cults, spiritual abuse and mysticism/occult based spirituality)
- Willow Creek - Hegelian Dialectic & The New World Order (Covers the church growth movement and its agenda; includes Willow Creek and Saddleback Church)
- The Seeker-Friendly Way of Doing Church (An approach to evangelizing through application of the latest marketing techniques)
- An Analysis of Rick Warren's "Purpose Driven" Church Growth Strategy
- The Transformation of the Church (A Database of Historical and Current Data on the Strategic Partnerships & Interlocking Directorates of Organizations in the Global Ecumenical Movement)
- The Global Prayer and Missions Movement Database (Strategic Partnerships for the Propagation of Another Gospel)
- Smoke, Mirrors and Disinformation...The New Age Ties of the Apologetic Ministries


text:
Venkatraman, S and Kishore, * (1998) Investigations on the role of foam layers in the failure of glass-epoxy composite subjected to repeated impacts. In: Journal of Reinforced Plastics and Composites, 17 (08). pp. 741-751.
Full text not available from this repository. (Request a copy)Abstract
The comparative performance of repeatedly low mass pendulum impacted glass-epoxy (G-E) composites without and with the inclusion of either two or three (sheet) layers of flexible foam at the mid-region of the laminate is reported. Using square cross section specimens, the orientation of the test coupon was altered with respect to the impact direction such that in one case the G-E part, and the foam layers, constituting the system, were lying parallel (edgewise) and in the second case perpendicular (flatwise). The features of impact tested coupons, observed through macroscopy, were correlated with the mechanical data.
Item Type: | Journal Article |
Additional Information: | Copyright of this article belongs to Sage Publications. |
Keywords: | impact;glass-epoxy;foam;macroscopy. |
Department/Centre: | Division of Mechanical Sciences > Materials Engineering (formerly Metallurgy) |
Date Deposited: | 27 Aug 2009 04:14 |
Last Modified: | 27 Aug 2009 04:14 |
URI: | http://eprints.iisc.ernet.in/id/eprint/18772 |
Actions (login required)
View Item |


text:
As of January 16th, 2013 Ohio Chapter L has ceased operations and is considered to be "closed" by the GWRRA.
We encourage you to become active in other local GWRRA chapters, E2 in eastern Cincinnati, X2 in Middletown, G2 in Indiana or G in Kentucky.
A small group of original Chapter L members remains socially active. Contact Pat Runck for information on activities or to get on the mailing list.
Ohio Chapter L - GWRRA Chartered August 24th, 1985
Closed January 16th, 2013
Thanks for the memories! Visit the photos pages to relive the great times. We're going to keep this site up for a while to act as an online scrapbook.
Many years of past newsletters can be found here.
Chapter L was 25 years old in 2010!
Read about 25 years of history here...
National Weather Service Information Sites: National Doppler Radar Mosiac Loop Regional Doppler Radar Local Doppler Radar (Wilmington, OH) Ohio Forecast Zone Forecast, Watches & Warnings for Cincinnati Ohio Current Conditions in Cincinnati Ohio Satellite Images National Weather Service Home Page
© 1998-2013 Queen City Wing Riders, All Rights Reserved Please direct any comments to firstname.lastname@example.com


text:
Governor Bob McDonnell, a U.S. Army veteran himself, helped us launch the effort in May. In a partnership between the Department of Veterans Services (DVS) and the Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) veterans will be able to obtain an official ID card identifying them as Virginia Veterans.
Why do Virginia's veterans need an ID Card?
More than 800,000 veterans live in Virginia, and until now most didn't have a way to show their veteran status. These men and women have given much for our country and they deserve to be recognized. The new Virginia Veterans ID card will do just that.
How do our veterans benefit?
Retail businesses and restaurants around the state offer an array of valuable discounts to veterans. Instead of having to carry a DD 214 military discharge document, veterans who have a Veterans ID card can simply show a convenient, wallet-sized card and receive the discounts they've earned through their service and sacrifice.
What you can do to help
Simply post one of our DVS-provided banners on your website. The banner link should take readers to our website, where veterans can get the information they need. Banners can be found at http://www.dvs.virginia.gov/
Who should I contact for more information?
Please show your support for this exciting new veterans program. For more details on the program please visit http://www.dvs.virginia.gov/
On behalf of Virginia's veterans, thank you for your support.
Paul Galanti
Commissioner, Virginia Department of Veterans Services


text:
Robert Barker has been described as a great benefactor to the village of Datchet. However, the charity which bears his name, the Barker Bridge House Trust, did not originate with him and only acquired his name when he regularised the charity, as the last surviving trustee, just before his death. For more information about that see the History of the Royal Stag pages on this website. 1.5.1
- Rachel Day born about 1560 died 1607 married (a) Robert Barker (note0002bar)
Printer of Southley, Buckinghamshire (died in prison 1635 or 1645) Rober Barker
later married (b) Mrs Ann Cage (died 1631) widow of Nicholas Cage (Gage ?) of
London. Sir John Gage 1540s, Hampton Court Palace; Comptroller of the Household
to Henry VIII. 220.127.116.11
- Christopher Barker of Southley, Buckinghamshire, married 1615 Sarah
(note0001bon) daughter of Bonham Norton of London (died 1645) 188.8.131.52.1
- Anne Barker moved to Ireland 18.104.22.168.2
- Christopher Barker, Printer born 1622, aged 12 in 1634 126.96.36.199.3
- Rachel Barker married George Antrobus of London, a Woolen Draper 18.104.22.168
- Robert Barker 22.214.171.124
- Charles Barker married Elizabeth daughter of Nicholas Cage (Gage ?) 184.108.40.206
- Agatha Barker married John Legat (alias Legate) (note0001leg) of London,
Printer 220.127.116.11
- Francis Barker 188.8.131.52
- Matthew Barker, Lawyer 184.108.40.206
- Susan Barker married Clement Harby of London Robert Barker Bible printed 1614 |